You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Let me ask you what kind of might seem like a strange question: do you find yourself less opinionated (or holding your opinions back) or do you openly express yourself when you feel strongly about something or a particular value is crossed?

I have strong opinions, as long as I think I know enough about the subject to have an opinion. I don't really have "values" (at least nothing I think I could assign that term to) but I do express opinions if they are strong enough. I can't hold my tongue that well. There are a few select things that I feel very strongly about - just not a lot of things. So, I guess, sort of in the middle.

From what I understand, ISFPs are more easy going and are less likely to be as openly opinionated as INFPs for some reason. People have suggested SFP for me (and trust me, there's no way I'm ESFP, just not extroverted enough) which would leave me with ISFP...thing is, I relate to what you said about being inside of my own head and often walking places without even being able to tell you even exactly how I got there, although I am in touch with my five senses to a certain degree. I'm also more openly expressive about my opinions - and some of my opinions are pretty strong - and I enjoy theory and excel at literary analysis.

Don't know if this helps.

I don't know how in-touch with their senses SPs are "supposed" to be. I can be sitting uncomfortably for a long time and won't notice, for example. It would seem that ESxPs are very aware of their environment, but couldn't ISxPs basically live in their dominant function. I'm not at all "in the moment", but that doesn't really help because if an ISFP is very Fi heavy, maybe they can be out of the moment too.

I also enjoy theory, at least, I think I do . I can't "learn by doing" (I don't learn anything, lol). I am relating this mostly to university, but as an example: in some of my more theoretical (and thankfully, lab-free) chemistry courses other students seem "unwilling" to learn the material, saying "It doesn't relate to the real world". They seem to want to apply it with labs, but I am not like this. Pretty much, I am just fine with things not relating to the real world. But again, that seems to go against SJ more than SP.

Everything helps . Thanks again. Sorry for rambling.

Strychnine is all-natural,
So strychnine is all good.
It's Godly and righteous,
So eat it, you should.Who are you to refuse nature's will?

Ok, well, I have been thinking more about this and reading about Ne and Se. I can't really relate to Se and Ne just sounds like something everyone does (to a large degree).

I don't know if this will help clarify the differences, but here I go....

Se people take in info through their 5 sense, which means they perceive things as they are literally. This is why they tend to like tangible, real world experience, because it's very vivid for them. They may also notice sensory detail easily, finding it harder to block them out even when they want to. This can mean small things distract them easily, such as movement & lights & noises. They may seem random in that they note all these things around them, jumping from one to the other, not able to focus on any one thing because so much is grabbing their attention in one moment. They may seek to test external limits, and see if the physical standards can be defied & redefined to something which suits their ideals (Fi) or logic (Ti) better. The Ji functions also allows them to discriminate between the sensory info so as to eventually focus, process it and act rationally. The immature Se person may act on every physical impulse, appearing hedonistic, failing to evaluate these impulses.

ISFPs, use Se in the aux position, which means it supports Fi. It brings in literal info for the feeling to gauge and finds concrete ways to express that suit the feeling best. However, these concrete ways can be very creative; instead of forming theory, they may manipulate the tangible in innovative ways. This is why they may distrust theory that they cannot relate to anything real & observable. However, being Fi-dom, they will also be focused on deriving meaning & value, so they aren't necessarily literal to the point of seeming shallow - the current reality is just the context they prefer to use to perceive. To see value, they can often relate a theory to something real, and then they will then accept it. I suppose tertiary Ni aids in this aspect - shifting perspective on what is so as to be able to change it into what you want it to be. Their Ni is aiding FiSe to find practical ways to meet ideals (which are not exactly that practical...); so it's not looking to totally create a new reality, but to manage current reality in a new, more acceptable way to their Fi.

Ne people take in info by seeing what lies just below the external, tangible world - that invisible layer of concepts, patterns and possibilities implied by the sensory information. These intuitions emerge quickly & spontaneously without any line of reasoning, sometimes many at once, so that the focus is on them rather than what is literal in front of them. This is why they tend to be future focused - what does the current reality say about what could be? So this perspective does not absorb the sensory detail much - it's focusing on the concepts beneath it to form a big picture. This can add an absent-minded aspect or make them seem random, because they don't focus on the present for long before some seemingly unrelated idea pops up that they want to explore, and ideas exist in the mental/theoretical realm. They may like to test external concepts, to see if the existing rules can be defied and redefined in a way that better suits their logic or ideals. The Ji functions also allow them to sort out these ideas so as to eventually focus to act on one that makes sense. Immature Ne people will be either paralyzed to act, flooded with possibilities, or they will act on every whim, failing to evaluate them.

INFPs, use Ne in the aux position, which means it supports Fi. It brings in non-tangible insights for the feeling to gauge and forms innovative concepts on how to express that suit the feeling best. This is why they may distrust literal experience that limits or contradicts their theories of what is ideal & how it can be created in the real world. However, being tert-Si, they can learn from past experience to adjust or even discard ideals that are totally at odds with reality, thus avoiding being delusional . Between Ne & Si, expressing & creating Fi ideals in the external world is a real possibility instead of an overwhelmingly difficult task. Si tends to aid FiNe, so it's focused more on remembering feelings & deriving meaning from the past, not details & factual info.

Both IxFPs are often "creative" people, being motivated to create some semblance of their ideal in reality. Since both are heavily motivated by and concerned with Fi ideals, ISFPs will not always seem as practical or grounded as the stereotypical sensor, and they may lapse into moments of introspection a lot, where they are not aware of their surroundings so vividly. It's how they channel their ideals & interact with their environment that is the big clue as whether a Fi-dom is S or N.

Often a star was waiting for you to notice it. A wave rolled toward you out of the distant past, or as you walked under an open window, a violin yielded itself to your hearing. All this was mission. But could you accomplish it? (Rilke)

Thank you! It probably took you a while to write out, I'm very grateful for your time and effort.

I'm still digesting it, but... I think I'm probably ISFP. I relate to both, except that I don't really have "ideals"... but noise, etc, does distract me if I'm trying to study or something so I must have Se reasonably high in my function order. I feel sort of in between your descriptions, probably on the ISFP side overall though.

Thanks again.

Strychnine is all-natural,
So strychnine is all good.
It's Godly and righteous,
So eat it, you should.Who are you to refuse nature's will?

Thank you! It probably took you a while to write out, I'm very grateful for your time and effort.

I'm still digesting it, but... I think I'm probably ISFP. I relate to both, except that I don't really have "ideals"... but noise, etc, does distract me if I'm trying to study or something so I must have Se reasonably high in my function order. I feel sort of in between your descriptions, probably on the ISFP side overall though.

Thanks again.

Hmmm...noise distracts me if I'm trying to study. I hate when people talk to me when I'm reading. I can't sleep with lights on or the television on. When I live with a lot of roommates, I sleep with ear plugs in.

I've been told by another Ne dom that she has this same issue.

I'm not trying to throw a monkey wrench in the works, but it's pretty much as simple as conceptual, theoretical, and a gravitation toward seeing underlying patterns vs. factual and concrete application.

Hmmm...noise distracts me if I'm trying to study. I hate when people talk to me when I'm reading. I can't sleep with lights on or the television on. When I live with a lot of roommates, I sleep with ear plugs in.

I've been told by another Ne dom that she has this same issue.

I'm not trying to throw a monkey wrench in the works, but it's pretty much as simple as conceptual, theoretical, and a gravitation toward seeing underlying patterns vs. factual and concrete application.

Ok, thanks. Well. I don't know. I'm not particularly theoretical, but I am not good at applying things, and taking action, and stuff like that. Nor do I prefer it. It seems I am both to some degree (probably b/c of Fi) but otherwise, neither.

I'm only sticking with ISFP now because I don't seem to fit the NF/idealist temperament, which is more aligned with INFP. I don't idealize things, and I don't have ideals.

Strychnine is all-natural,
So strychnine is all good.
It's Godly and righteous,
So eat it, you should.Who are you to refuse nature's will?

The sensory distraction thing was meant to illustrate a concept. The fact that you took it very literally may suggest S over N.... Ideals are very conceptual in nature also, and I notice ISFPs don't always see their Fi in those terms. So ISFP seems a good fit for you, IMO.

Often a star was waiting for you to notice it. A wave rolled toward you out of the distant past, or as you walked under an open window, a violin yielded itself to your hearing. All this was mission. But could you accomplish it? (Rilke)

I have decided to start my own attention whoring thread... please help type me!

Je: I don't think I am a higher Fe user. Not only do I not care about social expectations, I am usually oblivious as to what the external standard of "normal" is, and to what other people think of me. I am not tactful. I feel insulted if someone calls me normal, even if they meant it to be reassuring. It's like they are trying to tame me, but I will never be tamed! My understanding of Te is rather poor, but I don't relate to descriptions from the "horse's mouth", and I don't think I have the Te function attitude.

Ji: I read both the Fi and Ti function attitudes on The Lenore Thomson Exegesis Wiki and I seem to relate to each more than I relate to Je. My life motto is probably something like, "Anything outside your own person is irrelevant to evaluating anything or choosing your course in life." (which is from that site, but I don't use the word "soul" that it used) I just think that people need to use their own inner understanding of themselves to make decisions, and in principle anything outside shouldn't influence it. In practice the influence should try to be minimized. As for Ti I am not necessarily a system thinker or purely analytical, but other than that, I relate to it. In any case, I value internal consistency highly.

Pe: I can't differentiate between Ne/Se that well. I seem to fluctuate between Pe and Si attitudes/viewpoints in my daily life. Say I have a long term goal (btw, my goals are very general, which seems to be a P thing). Something happens in the present and changes the path I'll have to take to the goal. Or I have to change the goal itself. Sometimes I'll get stuck in a rut for a few hours, where I hold an Si(?) viewpoint like "Damn, I spent all this time working towards this one goal. I don't wanna change now because all the work will go to waste" before the Pe viewpoint (idk whether it's Ne or Se) kicks in and says "Alright, I can easily adjust to this problem, there are millions of options/paths to take from here!" I spend about 1/4th of my time in the Si(?) viewpoint and the rest in Pe. As long as I have options open to maneuver around my mistake, the mistake isn't a mistake at all from my POV. I don't like my options to be limited and I am the last person to limit my own options, and I see the options easily, which allows me to spend little time in the rut (thankfully).

Pi: I have no Ni whatsoever. Si, on the other hand, I know I have. Lately I have been thinking it may not be strong enough to be dominant. I have read posts from ISxJs here where they seem to be able to remember things incredibly well -- for example, they punch a number into a computer ONCE and remember it. In my case, no matter how many times I enter various card numbers into my computer, or even consciously try to memorize them, they do not stick. Same with phone numbers, etc.

On a first read, my vote is INFP. I know lots of them that seem to have some balance with their T/F. And as Te is your last function, you won't really "relate" to it. I don't relate to Fe much at all but there it is.

I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.
- Umberto Eco
INTP e9 (sx/so/sp)
Ti = Ne (41.3) > Si (31.2) ~ Ni (31.1) ~ Te (30.1) > Se (24.1) >> Fe (21) & Fi (20.1)

The sensory distraction thing was meant to illustrate a concept. The fact that you took it very literally may suggest S over N.... Ideals are very conceptual in nature also, and I notice ISFPs don't always see their Fi in those terms. So ISFP seems a good fit for you, IMO.

Yeah, I agree, I think ideals are conceptual. So is right and wrong, imo. I've always thought that it was very abstract to see things as right vs. wrong. This is going to sound awful but I don't have a sense of right/wrong in my mind, which probably points away from INFP as well.

Thanks everyone! I think I have my type now

Strychnine is all-natural,
So strychnine is all good.
It's Godly and righteous,
So eat it, you should.Who are you to refuse nature's will?

Summary Analysis of Profile
By focusing on the strongest configuration of cognitive processes, your pattern of responses most closely matches individuals of this type: INTP

Lead (Dominant) Process
Introverted Thinking (Ti): Gaining leverage (influence) using a framework. Detaching to study a situation from different angles and fit it to a theory, framework or principle. Checking for accuracy. Using leverage to solve the problem.

Support (Auxilliary) Process
Extraverted Intuiting (Ne): Exploring the emerging patterns. Wondering about patterns of interaction across various situations. Checking what hypotheses and meanings fit best. Trusting what emerges as you shift a situation’s dynamics.

If these cognitive processes don't fit well then consider these types: ENTP, or INFP

I know this doesn't fit ISFP, but I think the test confuses Ne and Se. As I was doing the test, I copied some of the questions and explained my results...

Suspected Se questions, but not sure:1. Freely follow your gut instincts and exciting physical impulses as they come up. --I have to admit that I have absolutely no idea what a physical impulse is. I don't think I have them, so I put "not me"15. Enjoy the thrill of action and physical experience in the present moment. --I don't pay attention to the present moment. My head is not in the present moment. If something interesting is happening then yes, I enjoy it, but I don't consider that a "physical experience", it's more like a mental experience and not very action oriented. I have this issue with SP descriptions. I am not action oriented. I put "little me"24. Quickly move to take advantage of immediate options for action. --That would require me to first notice "immediate options for action", which I don't do, because I am seldom in the present moment. (This is my biggest issue with SP descriptions) "little me"29. Instantly read visible cues to see just how far you can go. --LOL I do this "mostly me". I like to push people's buttons.38. Spur action and pull off results simply by making your presence felt. --"not me", but I wish it were, this sounds effective.48. Easily get in sync physically with people and things around you. --This could also be Fe but the "things" part makes me think Se, in any case I suck at this so I'm putting "little me"23. Engage life's magical moments and meaningful coincidences as they happen. --I put "mostly me"37. Weave into the current dynamics of a situation aspects of other, random contexts. --"exactly me", sounds kind of in the moment but also partially out of it to think of the "random contexts", which seems to fit me well

Suspected Ne questions, but not sure:2. Offer various unrelated ideas and see what potential they might suggest. --This is my primary problem solving method, or discussion method, pretty much relating things that other people think are unrelated (nothing is really unrelated, I think I can stretch any two things into one, this is why I used to make such rambly blog posts, my "point" would keep changing until I couldn't find it anymore), and then if/when the other person reciprocates by doing the same, it spirals out of control lol. It is refreshing to find someone else who does this type of thing, most people seem to be Si users in this world (there are a lot of SJs. not surprising) which stunts this type of thinking. Topics change fast. I'd say we don't even have topics! Especially with NFPs. I like NFPs. Then again my dad's an ENFP so growing up around him, I might have adopted this way of thinking despite it being not my natural way. Still, I put "exactly me".16. Enjoy playing with random interconnections and patterns. --same as above, "mostly me"30. Keep following tangents and new ideas without limiting yourself to one. --same again47. Trust what emerges from brainstorming. --same once again. I suppose this is in contrast to distrusting speculation and trusting things that are "tried and true" like Si does?

I don't know what the hell these are, but I relate to them:20. Concisely reference multiple frameworks at once while problem solving. --I think this is Ti? Si? I do this, whatever it is, just not that much. "somewhat me"18. Conceive of a comprehensive plan to maximize progress toward multiple goals at once. --I do this to avoid closing any doors, I don't know if this is Ji or Pe or which function though.

Suspected Fi questions, but not sure:8. Feel strongly that something is good or bad. --I see both sides too easily to do that, I have to debate with myself for a while before I decide which is bad/good and even then it's not "strong" and it's not a feeling.19. Freely enjoy doing what you want for your own personal happiness. --I bet this is supposed to be Fi, and I put "mostly me", but I don't know who wouldn't relate to this!21. Gain a profound realization from a mystical state or sudden release of emotions. --I don't suddenly release emotions. I am not a volcano, thanks. "not me"25. Always remain true to what you want for yourself or others. --yes. "mostly me"36. Evaluate what is worth believing in and most important to who you really are inside. --"mostly me"43. Continually examine if choices harmonize with important beliefs. --"somewhat me"... I think this is called reflective equilibrium between theory and practice, which I like to maintain, yes. Failing this, I rationalize bad choices, and I know it. That's why I can't put "mostly me" though I wish that were the case.

This one's probably Ni but it sounds a bit like Fi to me: 28. Feel attracted to the symbolic, archetypal, or mysterious. --I put "little me"

Any thoughts, people? Why is it so off?

Strychnine is all-natural,
So strychnine is all good.
It's Godly and righteous,
So eat it, you should.Who are you to refuse nature's will?

More stuff 'cause I can't stop typing

I've realized that I don't like practical courses in school (university). I don't like chem labs. And I don't like to do the same boring calculation over and over again with different numbers, I want to be able to take different paths to a solution. I like proofs (mostly in logic/probability courses) for that very reason. It annoys me that many people seem to require a formula for problem-solving. I consider myself a pretty good problem-solver, and failing that, I at least enjoy it immensely. I think I subconsciously invent problems just so I can get a high out of solving them. And much of this high comes from the chase rather than the catch: the process of problem-solving rather than the solution itself. I am happiest when in the process of improvement, not when I'm done and idle (in this case, I end up finding a new problem almost immediately). Anyway, to solve a problem, I apply whatever solution I can brainstorm and determine to be good (I guess the determination is thanks to Ji). This is why it irritates me when courses allow one to take a formulaic problem-solving approach, I don't even consider it real problem-solving.

In the same vein: I don't mind whiners. They can whine all they want. I whine in order to get the problem out, which usually starts the solution brainstorming process. Sometimes I whine to no one, I just type onto my hard drive. Other times I just talk to myself. Yet some of my 'friends' seem to whine endlessly without pushing for or even wanting a solution. I don't get this.

I don't have a practical bent. I don't need knowledge to be applicable in order to learn it. Take MBTI for instance, I am not learning it for self-improvement (though that's a definite positive), and definitely not for career-choosing help, etc. I am learning it for itself. It's just interesting.

That said, I may be confusing a like of open-ended things (probably from my P) with a like of theory. I study philosophy as well and I thought I liked it 'cause it's theoretical, allows you to say what you want as long as you can defend it, etc. But I may just like it because it doesn't have a closed solution. No right answer. So I can speculate back and forth, don't have to make up my mind, etc. Appeals to the P, doesn't necessarily have to be N.

Speaking of... I don't like to talk to people simply for the sake of exchanging information -- this drains me very fast. On the other hand, if we are discussing interesting things, I can keep going for hours. (This leads me to believe I'm "ambiverted".) Interesting things are usually just whatever we find interesting at the time :P. I don't like to restrict myself to one "topic", and it really bothers me when people drag the conversation back "on-topic" because what I said was too "random". In the same vein, when people say something directly related to the topic at hand (like, very closely related) and proceed to comment on how "random" it is, by saying "sorry this is so random", it annoys me a lot, because if they think THAT is random and that random is bad, I have no hope. I relate to people through interesting conversation, so if they bore me, I'll never get to know them. I can't share a vocabulary with my SJ friends. Big problem. I'll say something, they say they relate to me, and then when they actually explain what they mean, I realize we're talking about totally different things.

When I used to blog, I had this problem where I could not tease apart the topics I wanted to blog about. All of them seemed related. Now I have to force myself to separate them and write separate posts, otherwise I will blend all the topics into one and end up writing like 2000 word blog posts.

-------------------------

In another thread, I posted this:

Originally Posted by penny89

Ne people, I have some questions...

What is the difference between a connection made/ pattern "seen" with your preferred judging function, vs. Ne? My guess is that the Ne connection is subconscious, instantaneous (Ji is more methodical and could never be as fast, right?), and sometimes so "out there" that you are surprised your brain made the connection. It feels like it came out of nowhere. Is this true?

In the same vein... can you "check over" your Ne connection with Ji and follow Ne's "reasoning" despite skipped or nonexistent steps? If it doesn't "make sense" to Ji, do you reject it?

Do you have a hard time believing that the connections you see aren't inherent in reality, but are merely products of your mind? (ie. can you easily differentiate between what is real and what is a product of your mind ... and do you think the connections you see are indeed in reality or just in your mind)

Some higher Ne users more or less agreed w/ me on that thread, but if this is really how Ne operates, and no other function can look like Ne in this way, I probably haz it (Ne) at a higher level than shadow.

More posting in a bit about how I see "possibilities" etc 'cause I really don't have anything better to do. :P

Strychnine is all-natural,
So strychnine is all good.
It's Godly and righteous,
So eat it, you should.Who are you to refuse nature's will?